The admissibility of circumstantial evidence and the importance of timely filing of the supplementary report by the investigating agency.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral) -The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.242 dated 07.11.2020 at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, under Sections 346 IPC (Sections 302/201/120-B IPC added later on).

2. The matter in hand pertains to death of Lakhvir Singh, who is brother of petitioner's husband. Initially, the FIR in question came to be lodged under Section 346 IPC pursuant to lodging of 'missing report' of Lakhvir Singh dated 03.11.2020. Upon recovery of dead body of Lakhvir Singh on 09.11.2020, offences under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC were added on 11.11.2020 vide DDR No.30. The dead body of Lakhvir Singh had been recovered from Kotla Branch Canal in the area of Village Jodhpur Pakhar.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that subsequently the petitioner suffered an extra judicial confession before one Naib Singh admitting therein that she alongwith her husband and son had administered poison to the deceased and thrown his dead body in Canal. It is further the case of the prosecution that Sukhbir Singh, who is brother of the deceased as well as brother of petitioner's husband, had seen the petitioner and co-accused in the company of the deceased Lakhvir Singh on the bank of the Canal on 03.11.2020.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, wherein the entire family of the petitioner has been involved falsely mainly on account of the fact that there has been a property dispute amongst the petitioner's husband, namely, Rajpal Singh and his two brothers, namely, Lakhvir Singh and Jasvir Singh. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the 'last seen' evidence as well as the alleged extra judicial confession are weak type of evidence and are not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged death of Lakhvir Singh. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is a lady aged about 70 years and has a clean record and as such, deserves the concession of bail.

5. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that even though there is no eye- witness to the alleged occurrence, but the circumstantial evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation sufficiently points towards the guilt of the petitioner and other accused inasmuch as the petitioner and co-accused had been seen in the company of the deceased immediately before his death and in fact the petitioner had also confessed her guilt before one Naib Singh. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner as well as co-accused had a motive to eliminate the deceased as they were having a dispute regarding property with him. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that at the time of granting interim bail to the petitioner on 21.01.2021, report of the FSL was still awaited, but the said report has now been received, which clearly substantiates the case of the prosecution regarding poisoning of the deceased inasmuch as it has been reported in the report that the viscera was found to contain 'Organophosphorus'. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that apparently the deceased after having been administered poison had been thrown in the canal so as to destroy evidence and as such, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

7. Admittedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The admissibility of the extra judicial confession and the 'last seen' evidence would depend upon other evidence to be led by the prosecution, as normally said evidence is treated as weak type of evidence unless corroborated by other clinching evidence. In any case, the petitioner is a lady aged about 70 years and has already joined investigation. The co-accused had already been arrested.

8. Having regard to